Why do many supporters of Darden et al. always insult and degrade their conversation partners at the same time?
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
Why do many supporters of Darden et al. always insult and degrade their conversation partners at the same time?
They are words of desperation. I don't think Jed would use the same terminology if he were talking to me face-to-face.
-
Display More
[Bass:]
A. Occasional checking to see what was going on on our side, looking at the flow meter and looking at the temperature of the steam.
Q. So there were temperature gauges on the J.M. Products side?
A. Yes.
Q. Where were those located?
A. They were outside of the chamber sitting on a table.
That was an invisible instrument, like the pipes and the mezzanine equipment. It did not show up on camera and no one other than Bass saw it. It was a poltergeist.
As I said, you cannot measure steam enthalpy with a thermometer and a water flow meter. That's not possible. So if Bass testified he measured "what was going on" he is even stupider than I thought. I saw that Penon was that stupid the moment I read his report. Rossi sure knows how to pick out ignorant fools! And how to impress them, as you demonstrate by pointing out this kind of nonsense.
By the way, what kind of flow meter gauge is located several meters away from the pipe? I have heard of computer screens displaying data collected from flow meters some distance away, but this is the first I have heard of the gauge itself magically positioned so far away. It must be a oddly shaped. Assuming Rossi is telling the truth, it wouldn't work no matter how it is shaped. You can't measure steam with a water flow meter, and downstream from the condenser it was a gravity return pipe, and Rossi has apparently never heard of a U pipe.
-
Reading this e-mails I understand that Rossi (at that time the "chief-scientist" of IH) was leading this test - so I am not suprised that they "got" an COP of 5 to 9.
To the defense of IH - and I'm quite reluctant to defend IH's faith in Rossi - they at least were cautious about this preliminary ("caveated") measurements:
QuoteDisplay MoreWe operated the first three Reactors on Tuesday, 9/10 and our data (subject to the measurement caveat above) showed that the produced significant excess energy. We stopped them after a half day and waited until Thursday 9/12 to start them again.
After operating for several hours, Dr. Rossi decided to elevate their input energy until something failed, as a test.
[...]
We replaced reactor 2 with one of the remaining three that we build and started operating again on Tuesday, 9/17.
We operated for three days, again showing good results based on our (caveated) measurements.
The calculated COP was between 5 and 9. [I would wait at least another week to provide hard numbers like this]
[...]
Most of the time Andrea, Fulvio, T Dameron, JTVaughn and I [Darden] are at that location.
-
Why do many supporters of Darden et al. always insult and degrade their conversation partners at the same time?
Rends, it would help me if you could state who you think does this? Other than Jed, who from context is probably one?
-
Quote
Reading this e-mails I understand that Rossi (at that time the "chief-scientist" of IH) was leading this test - so I am not suprised that they "got" an COP of 5 to 9.
To the defense of IH - and I'm quite reluctant to defend IH's faith in Rossi - they at least were cautious about this preliminary ("caveated") measurements:
A P says, the two errors that would happily give COP=9 are easy to be missed by unsophisticated IH staff who are led by Rossi and don't imagine he is actively deceiving them.
- Input reads 1/3 of real: either the classic - measure only one phase, or the more subtle: put one of three current clamps on the wrong way round.
- IR reads X3 output power - as is well documented.
-
Rends, it would help me if you could state who you think does this? Other than Jed, who from context is probably one?
http://coldfusioncommunity.net/2681-2/#comment-2465
... and this is a person who is acting in behalf of IH/ Darden et.al. /Cherokee -
unsophisticated IH staff
...interesting, -
Dewey insults and denigrates anyone who he thinks is supporting a slimy fraudster. It's just his way. And he was banned. You've scored two. Anyone else, or does two = many when it is IH supporters doing something you don't like?
Quote...interesting,
Care to state your point here instead of making this obscure and fact-free comment?
-
Dewey insults and denigrates anyone who does not agree with him.
Understand and why he is working for IH/Darden/Cherokee? -
Why do many supporters of Darden et al. always insult and degrade their conversation partners at the same time?
Other than Jed, who from context is probably one?
I realize the modern era is politically correct, and many people are delicate snowflakes who cannot stand to be told they are wrong. But I do not see how this applies. IH Fanboy boldly and repeatedly makes impossible claims that violate grade school science. He says that steam leaking from a pipe proves there is steam in the pipe. He agrees with Bass that you can "probe" (magically measure) the energy of steam with a thermometer and a water flow meter. Anyone with knowledge of grade school science knows that these assertions are wrong. They are nonsense. The fact that they are nonsense and the reasons they are nonsense have been described here time after time after time. How could anyone fail to see this?!? These issues are fundamental to this discussion, as pointed out by Smith. They are the ABCs of thermodynamics. They prove beyond any doubt that Penon's report is meaningless. If you don't see that, you see nothing, and you understand nothing about this discussion.
How am I being rude when I point these things out? If this were a discussion group about Shakespeare, and IHFB repeatedly asserted the Shakespeare wrote the Star Wars movies, would it be an insult to point out this is preposterous? Where do we draw the line? Just how stupid does he have to be, and how many times does he have to make the same damn mistake, before it is relevant to point out he is wrong? Are there no technical standards here at all? Are we never allowed to point to conventional textbook science to show that someone is wrong?
IHFB "degrades" himself. He insults himself. I merely point out that is what he is doing.
-
E48 on JONP:
Murray, Smith and IH are not going to like this. Smoking gun stuff
You are not expecting that anyone would take this "smoking gun" serious, do you?
That's grasping for straws, same as the "1 MW steam sauna" idea (the indoor water evaporation) of an ecw fellow.
-
Understand and why he is working for IH/Darden/Cherokee?I thought better of that before reading your post (see above)
Context always matters. I think Dewey enjoys giving as good as he gets but the reason he is so hard on a few posters here is because he wholeheartedly believes they are bad news for LENR, and he hates the way they traduce IH. See his recent comment on Abd's site (which does not link).
I believe (may have got the details wrong) that he is an old friend of Tom and one of the investors in IH. And he is working for IH as contact with LENR people. So he probably find that the lies spread on ECW about IH piss him off. They certainly would me.
-
He agrees with Bass that you can "probe" (magically measure) the energy of steam with a thermometer and a water flow meter. Anyone with knowledge of grade school science knows that these assertions are wrong. They are nonsense.
Not nonsense. We know the pressure was nominally atmospheric. We have a flow meter in the return path. Thus, we can know, using grade school science, the energy of the steam.
You allege (with no evidence) that the return pipe was partially full and therefore the flow meter data is fake. E48 has provided abundant evidence that your allegation is either blatantly ignorant or purposely misleading.
-
A P says, the two errors that would happily give COP=9 are easy to be missed by unsophisticated IH staff who are led by Rossi and don't imagine he is actively deceiving them.
Input reads 1/3 of real: either the classic - measure only one phase, or the more subtle: put one of three current clamps on the wrong way round.
IR reads X3 output power - as is well documented.Yes, the three phase problem is unsophisticated. It has often been used in fake energy machines. Another common trick is using a DC meter on AC power.
The IR problem fooled Levi et al. in the Lugano test. They were somewhat sophisticated people, so I guess this one is more understandable. Although I will never get why they did not use the thermocouple to confirm the temperature, the way they did in the first set of tests. I suppose that would have revealed the problem. I realize you cannot use at TC at just any temperature in any condition, but even if the thing had broken from the heat, it would confirm the IR camera readings at first, up to a point.
Needless to say, there was a lot else wrong with Lugano. No need to rehash that.
Anyway, the people at I.H. eventually figured out the control run was producing apparent excess heat. That's the most convincing proof the test has failed. They acknowledged that and pointed it out to Rossi. All their technical sins should be absolved at that point.
-
You are not expecting that anyone would take this "smoking gun" serious, do you?
Well, why do you think there is a clean area about the size of a steam pipe crossing the left section of the door threshold?
-
Not nonsense. We know the pressure was nominally atmospheric.
No, that is impossible. As Smith pointed out, nothing would flow if that were true. The reservoir had to be at 1 atm because it was open to air, as anyone can tell by looking at it. Again, you make a grade-school level mistake.
You allege (with no evidence) that the return pipe was partially full and therefore the flow meter data is fake.
The evidence is visible, as I just said. The reservoir is open to the air. Anyone can see that. It is not invisible like pipes, or magic like the glass the vanishes and reappears, that only children and fools can see (or not see). With the reservoir open to air, you have to have a gravity return pipe. The capacity of this pipe is far greater than the gravity return maximum flow. Therefore it is mostly empty. The problem could be fixed with U pipe, but there was no U pipe. Or if there was, it was yet another invisible poltergeist. Oh, and Rossi forgot to take pictures of it before he tore it out the day after the test. Sure.
-
-
I believe (may have got the details wrong) that he is an old friend of Tom and one of the investors in IH. And he is working for IH as contact with LENR people. So he probably find that the lies spread on ECW about IH piss him off. They certainly would me.
Understand, but for example I quote from court files and of course try to lure people out of the cover, but how is it possible that someone in the position of a Dewey Weaver could be so unprofessional? This is somehow characteristic of the whole case.
For example you and I had massive disputes, but I can not remember that I attack you on that level! -
No, that is impossible. As Smith pointed out, nothing would flow if that were true. The reservoir had to be at 1 atm because it was open to air, as anyone can tell by looking at it. Again, you make a grade-school level mistake.
You can say grade school as much as you like, but it doesn't change the fact that Smith didn't even know the maximum rate of the pumps. He at least provided us with a dimension for the inner diameter of the pipe: 4.5 inches! And you know what the pressure loss is? Next to nothing! So your whole false pressure edifice came tumbling down. It seems likely to me that Smith concocted the connection between the return path and the steam riser, so that he could claim the system was flooded. I very much doubt Smith's conclusions.
